Prince v. Kelley
2017 Ark. 320
| Ark. | 2017Background
- Carl Prince filed a pro se "Motion for Rule on the Clerk" asking the Arkansas Supreme Court to assume jurisdiction of his petition for a writ of habeas corpus.
- Prince alleged no circuit court could accept jurisdiction because the Arkansas Department of Correction repeatedly transferred him between prison units.
- Prince contended his habeas petition had merit because no state statute authorized the "split" sentence on which he was detained.
- The filing invoked Arkansas Supreme Court Rule 2-2 (motion for rule on clerk) to authorize filing of the habeas petition and affidavit of indigency.
- The Arkansas Supreme Court disposed of the matter by syllabus entry (effectively dismissing or declining relief), prompting this written dissent by Justice Hart.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Prince) | Defendant's Argument (Kelley) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Supreme Court should assume jurisdiction over Prince’s habeas petition | Court has constitutional and statutory authority; dismissing for expediency is improper | Court declined to assume jurisdiction (procedural disposition by syllabus entry) | Court did not assume jurisdiction / dismissed by syllabus entry (per majority); dissent argues it should assume jurisdiction |
| Whether Rule on Clerk is an appropriate mechanism to file the habeas petition | Rule 2-2 authorizes dealing with untimely/irregular filings and should permit filing | Majority treated the filing as subject to dismissal rather than acceptance | Dissent: Rule on Clerk should have authorized filing or transfer to circuit court |
| Whether Prince’s inability to find a circuit court due to transfers justified Supreme Court intervention | Frequent transfers prevented circuit courts from accepting jurisdiction; merits alleged (invalid split sentence) | State did not concede jurisdictional barrier sufficient to require this court’s intervention | Dissent: transfers and alleged statutory defect justify either assuming jurisdiction or transferring the petition |
| Proper remedy — dismissal vs transfer to appropriate circuit court | Request either assumption of jurisdiction and decision on merits or transfer to the circuit court where Prince is incarcerated | Majority disposed via syllabus entry (no transfer) | Dissent: court should either decide on merits or transfer; dismissal abdicates responsibility |
Key Cases Cited
- Simpson v. Sheriff of Dallas County, 333 Ark. 277 (1998) (discusses the historical importance of the writ of habeas corpus and court’s role)
- Ex parte Bollman, 4 Cranch 75 (1807) (Chief Justice Marshall calling habeas the "great writ")
- Ex parte Yerger, 8 Wall. 85 (1868) (Chief Justice Chase describing habeas as essential defense of personal freedom)